Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Orlando. Because, the entire region is MANY cities neighboring into one large metro. Even though you may not lawfully be in Orlando City limits, it feels so much larger because of the through traffic or people commuting to the city in general. Not to mention the tourist make ORLANDO feel extra crowded. You can't tell who lives where or who is here for whatever purpose.
I am curious why so many feel it is an undercount if illegals were not counted.
They are here illegally, should be deported and there is no way the states should have federal money sent their way because they got counted. Unfortunately many of the states with high illegal populations are more interested in getting the federal money instead of enforcing the law and going after the illegal population.
I think that Omaha is the most misrepresented City in America. They clearly have a population of at 18 million. What was the census doing????
This is pointless. The census is not and will never be anything that resembles a perfect system. It is none the less the best way we have to count the population in our country and certainly much more accurate than estimations or projections.
This thread just seems like a bunch of sour grapes from people who wish their city had received a higher population total.
I am curious why so many feel it is an undercount if illegals were not counted.
They are here illegally, should be deported and there is no way the states should have federal money sent their way because they got counted. Unfortunately many of the states with high illegal populations are more interested in getting the federal money instead of enforcing the law and going after the illegal population.
take your rhetoric to the illegal immigration sub forum. this isn't the place where anyone is interested in your political views.
I thought the back and fourth of comments was by definition, a conversation, but ok. I guess it's because I've yet to throw up my hands and say 'oh god, I see now Montclair, thank you', so you'll try and say I'm not listening, but that's a really arrogant way to look at it. You've just not given a good argument. Let's try again.
Why do you think there was an undercount in many cities? Was it just the estimate being higher? Is it your thought that there just MUST have been due to many living illegally in the cities? I'm sorry if you think I'm the one being obtuse, obviously I think the same of you, but I just can't comprehend how you can KNOW that there was an undercount.
The estimate angle I find really mad, but I CAN understand the idea that many illegals weren't counted. Again though, how can you KNOW? You can think that it would make sense for them to have not been counted, but you have no way at all of knowing if that was the case.
Somebody earlier said it was odd how the IRS was able to know you existed immediately if you didn't give them your money, whereas if you don't fill out the census form, the CB assumes you don't exist. I thought this was interesting at the time, and was even going to say I agree and there must be other ways of getting population numbers, but I've had a rethink.
The reason the IRS knows you exist is because you have probably submitted something to them somewhen in your life, and I imagine, as it is financially advantageous for them to assume you STILL exist, they'll keep asking for money until the hear otherwise. The CB have no benefit from assuming that everyone that filled out the last census must still be alive, and in fact that would just be irresponsible.
Sorry? The Census used to factor is estimates? Jesus, that is so stupid. So how was that? They'd count the people, as a census should, then they'd what? Find the median between the count and the estimate? A Census should be a count. If you start second guessing it and messing with the figures based on just guesses, that's almost foul play.
I agree with Montclair, and you're actually using the argument from ignorance fallacy, for starters your arguement towards Montclair is what proof does he or she has, that it has been a uncounted? All Montclair actually had to do is throw the fallacy back, “what proof you have that there weren‘t a major undercount?” See how silly it can get?
Any and this is beyond this site many leaders and mayors believe there cities are undercounted as well. Your augment is only about the federal census estimates to the census count, the census count came out in many place far below the local estimates as well, other wise against every. Also the bizarreness of how off some places were. 2009 the census said Atlanta was 541k from 416K in 2000 but census 2010 is 420K.
Ok let say the census is right! How the hell did they get a nearly overestimate of a city population by 25% of the results? “incredible! ” And not only that how can you be so off, to say a place grew not a little but significantly! that wasn’t really growing at all. “oops! ” That means the whole estimate growth, not some, not part, not half but the whole 10 year growth estimate, was imaginary. Nothing short of fascinating just saying.
I agree with Montclair, and you're actually using the argument from ignorance fallacy, for starters your arguement towards Montclair is what proof does he or she has, that it has been a uncounted? All Montclair actually had to do is throw the fallacy back, “what proof you have that there weren‘t a major undercount?” See how silly it can get?
Any and this is beyond this site many leaders and mayors believe there cities are undercounted as well. Your augment is only about the federal census estimates to the census count, the census count came out in many place far below the local estimates as well, other wise against every. Also the bizarreness of how off some places were. 2009 the census said Atlanta was 541k from 416K in 2000 but census 2010 is 420K.
Ok let say the census is right! How the hell did they get a nearly overestimate of a city population by 25% of the results? “incredible! ” And not only that how can you be so off, to say a place grew not a little but significantly! that wasn’t really growing at all. “oops! ” That means the whole estimate growth, not some, not part, not half but the whole 10 year growth estimate, was imaginary. Nothing short of fascinating just saying.
That's exactly my argument yes. I have no idea at all if there was an undercount or not, and neither does anyone else. I question the logic that there MUST have been an undercount based solely on the estimates being out.
So again, you're saying that because Atlanta was estimated to have 541k in 2010 and they only counted 420, it must be the 2010 census that was wrong? The questions I would ask are why is it assumed that the 2000 census was correct? Could that not have been an over-count? Why are these estimates thought to be so great? I'll admit I have no idea at all how they calculate them, and I'll bet that most people on here don't either, and yet it is these educated guesses that MUST be correct, and the actual count MUST be wrong.
Also, you are saying it's impossible, utterly loony, that an estimate might be off by 100k. You think that would be ludicrous. Yet, you think it's entirely plausible that an actual count, and not just an educated guess, can be off by that same 100k?
Again, I don't know that there wasn't an undercount, and I'm not arguing that there wasn't. Montclair on the other hand IS arguing that there MUST have been an undercount, which he/she can just not know.
I am constantly surprised how so many people are willing to not question the methods used by the Census Bureau and I link it to a desire to not wanting to understand because of the main reason why so many cities saw such a significant departure from population estimates: the method the Census Bureau used in 2010 specifically did not account for lower income minority and immigrant communities who by and large do not send in Census forms and they knew it.
For decades, it has been known that there is a certain segment of the population who does not wish to be counted in the Census. Mainly this affects lower income individuals in ethnic minority groups and immigrants both legal and illegal in urban enviroments. Obviously there is much that can be done to adjust for illegal immigrants (it's anyone's guess how many are really in America), but there is a way to counter people's specific desire not to be enumerated.
Big cities across the country since the 1950s knew that they were being short changed in the enumeration process and fought to have a new method developed. In the 1990s, the Census Bureau finally relented and approved using statistical sampling to count those individuals in situations where a straight headcount would never count everyone (source). Lo and behold, cities that had been losing population for decades all of a sudden had major gains in the 2000 Census count.
Unfortunately, when the Bush administration came around they decided to make the usage of statistical sampling a wedge issue and pushed an agenda of the the Census Bureau only using a straight head count for the 2010 Census. This policy was unfortunately extended by President Obama's nominee to the head the Census Bureau and statistical sampling was not on the plate for last years enumeration (source). Why would they do such a thing? Because the Republican party knows that inhabitants of the districts they control are more likely to turn in Census forms than the inhabitants of Democratic districts. Because of that disparity, it means that redistricting will favor their districts whether a state loses or gains a seat in the House of Representatives.
So how is this relevant? The Census Bureau knew from the get go that when they sent out Census forms last year that a very large chunk of several major cities (like almost all of them) would have tens of thousands (and in some cases hundreds of thousands) of people that would not be counted using a straight up head count. The problem was compounded by the inherent flaw in how enumeration teams go out and count people in households where forms were not received such as workers intentionally skipping neighborhoods or buildings they did not feel safe going in, skipping buildings or complexes they could not gain access to, and just the plain human error involved in paying someone $10 bucks an hour to walk around a neighborhood and write down inhabitants of a block not to mention the sheer size of some cities makes it impossible to cover every single dwelling in every single census block.
As 18Montclair pointed out, this isn't just about bragging rights. Some cities will be royally screwed when it comes to redistricting (as mentioned above) and a federal funding for services that benefit residents. If a city is alloted enough money to cover x number of people based on the Census, but there are at least several 10s of thousands of residents than is "officially" noted, then the city suffers because they wont have enough money cover serving all residents.
The few months will be interesting though. Starting this week, cities will begin filing their challenges to the Bureau's official enumeration and in July the Bureau will release the first population estimates for cities for this decade. Either one will mysteriously show tens of thousands of residents in many of the cities that showed a significant deviation from estimates that were supposedly not there last year for the official count. No doubt due to the uncounted being all away on holiday when the forms went out...
I guess though that traditionally cities vagrants and homeless people are under-counted. Considering the high rates of unemployment and severe poverty in Stockton, California maybe they have a large percent of homeless people or vagrants. Although that seems potentially silly.
That's exactly my argument yes. I have no idea at all if there was an undercount or not, and neither does anyone else. I question the logic that there MUST have been an undercount based solely on the estimates being out.
So again, you're saying that because Atlanta was estimated to have 541k in 2010 and they only counted 420, it must be the 2010 census that was wrong? The questions I would ask are why is it assumed that the 2000 census was correct? Could that not have been an over-count? Why are these estimates thought to be so great? I'll admit I have no idea at all how they calculate them, and I'll bet that most people on here don't either, and yet it is these educated guesses that MUST be correct, and the actual count MUST be wrong.
Also, you are saying it's impossible, utterly loony, that an estimate might be off by 100k. You think that would be ludicrous. Yet, you think it's entirely plausible that an actual count, and not just an educated guess, can be off by that same 100k?
Again, I don't know that there wasn't an undercount, and I'm not arguing that there wasn't. Montclair on the other hand IS arguing that there MUST have been an undercount, which he/she can just not know.
I’m saying it’s lose lose for the census credibility here, either they had completely no ideal what the hack they was doing with the estimates to the point they shouldn’t be giving them at all, or the 2010 census is significantly.
And No, … not impossible but yes it’s utterly loony, that an estimate to be off by over 100k from 541K, that 25% of the city population gone from the estimates. I saying there’s nothing educated at all about being off that much. And how can they even began to estimate significant growth from none. Year after year they reported Atlanta was gaining, so year after year there numbers were imaginary.
My argument come the census estimates, local estimates and etc to the census results, for the census results to be right the local estimates and etc, also were way off, it‘s saying everybody was wrong. Some cities got a what the hell across the board. I’m not all knowing the census maybe right, but you can’t blame leaders believing there’s a undercount. That's why I said it’s not just posters from this site. To be fair to Montclair, he or she said probable real pop.
I’m saying it’s lose lose for the census credibility here, either they had completely no ideal what the hack they was doing with the estimates to the point they shouldn’t be giving them at all, or the 2010 census is significantly.
And No, … not impossible but yes it’s utterly loony, that an estimate to be off by over 100k from 541K, that 25% of the city population gone from the estimates. I saying there’s nothing educated at all about being off that much. And how can they even began to estimate significant growth from none. Year after year they reported Atlanta was gaining, so year after year there numbers were imaginary.
My argument come the census estimates, local estimates and etc to the census results, for the census results to be right the local estimates and etc, also were way off, it‘s saying everybody was wrong. Some cities got a what the hell across the board. I’m not all knowing the census maybe right, but you can’t blame leaders believing there’s a undercount. That's why I said it’s not just posters from this site. To be fair to Montclair, he or she said probable real pop.
Ok, that's better. An attitude of 'who knows?' is really the only one we might be able to agree on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
” And not only that how can you be so off, to say a place grew not a little but significantly! that wasn’t really growing at all. “oops! 
” That means the whole estimate growth, not some, not part, not half but the whole 10 year growth estimate, was imaginary. Nothing short of fascinating just saying.
